With his piece
titled “Why Imran cannot win” (July 27), Mr Farrukh Saleem joined the
ranks of the few columnists and armchair intellectuals who defend the
status quo, who are desperately trying to persuade people that despite
the PTI’s rising popularity, the votes in the ballot box will go to
powerful landlords and feudals.

Farrukh Saleem has employed the
unique approach of using incomplete statistics and findings from a PhD
dissertation. But the columnist conveniently, perhaps deliberately,
ignores the fact that in the freest and fairest elections of 1970 the
vote of the downtrodden in West Pakistan, in what is Pakistan today, was
overwhelmingly in favour of the populist Zulfikar Ali Bhutto. Bhutto
was perceived by the masses, especially the rural population, as someone
who could free them from the clutches of the landlords and feudals.

Powerful
political leaders, some of them icons, were demolished in the populist
tidal wave of 1970, destroying the myth of these leaders’ invincibility
in which the political pundits of the day believed. In that eventful
year, Pakistan did not have the electronic media that reaches the
majority of households today. The fact that the sweeping change took
place without Bhutto having this virtually universal outreach available
to politicians now shows how baseless the myth is about Imran Khan and
the Tehrik-e-Insaaf.

If incomplete and outdated statistics were
the basis of analyses, there would be no hope for change in Pakistan, or
anywhere else in the world. But in the wake of the Arab Spring starting
in Tunisia – which went on to sweep through Egypt, Yemen, Bahrain,
Libya and Syria, and which did not leave Algeria, Jordan, Saudi Arabia,
the UAE and Oman unaffected – Farrukh Saleem’s arguments are weak, at
best.

The description of a vast majority of Pakistanis as
“kammis” is demeaning and derogatory, to say the least. Pakistanis are
not “kammis” doomed to a life of misery and deprivation forever. Recent
opinion polls conducted by credible and internationally renowned
research organisations show that the people of Pakistan have had enough
of the self-serving politics of parties such as the PPP and the PML-N.
The entrenched political parties may have “electables,” but if you take
the shifting public opinion, that is the only thing they will soon be
left with.

Farrukh Saleem advances a notion of perpetual
stagnation in socio-political development in the rural areas. This is
ignoring history. Exploitative systems in rural France and Russia, for
example, eventually led to change. Or maybe Mr Saleem believes that
things have to be far worse for our “kammis” to find impetus for an
upheaval. Or else he is one of those who detest change, out of fear that
it would dislodge them from their comfortable lifestyles. Despite their
drawing-room chatter in which they advocate change, deep down, it
seems, the privileged few abhor it.

The writer also fails to
recognise the influence of modern-day communication, including the
impact of text-messaging and social networking websites. In arriving at
the conclusions from his statistical study, he completely ignores the
exponential increase in the access to electronic media and the effect of
increasingly easy means of communication through mobile phones. Farrukh
Saleem may have got carried away by all the statistics and descriptions
of our rural society resulting in an analysis that somehow based itself
on the assumption that our rural areas have been and remain completely
isolated to the developments taking place in other parts of the country.

Farrukh Saleem has chosen the side of the forces that seek the
preservation of the status quo. His assertion that Imran Khan is about
“intangible ideas” is beyond comprehension. Imran Khan and his Pakistan
Tehrik-e-Insaf have always advocated a system which is just, where the
powerful and weak are equal before the law. He is the first political
leader in the last three decades who has led a campaign against the
rampant corruption that has destroyed institutions and led to
uncontrolled price hikes and inflation. In the mud-slinging contests
that follow discussions and debates related to politicians’ wealth,
assets and taxation, Imran Khan is the only name that comes out
unscathed. On the issue of taxes, he is the only voice criticising the
injustice of the salaried class and the poor being taxed while the rich
ruling elite siphons out its wealth abroad without paying taxes. His tax
reforms include taxing the rich to pay for social services for the
poor.

And where other political parties and their visionless
leaders merely appear to be waiting for their turn to come into power,
Imran Khan is the only politician to have laid out a strategy for change
– the 100-day plan – that provides a framework of policy changes to
address the challenges confronting Pakistani society by taking them
head-on. Challenges that affect the day-to-day lives of ordinary
citizens, the majority “kammis.”

Indeed, Imran Khan talks about
“ghairat.” How can any nation rise without self-esteem? Zulfikar Ali
Bhutto’s baptism in populist politics was his speech in the UN Security
Council and his subsequent speeches during his whirlwind tour of the
country in which he castigated President Ayub Khan for his alleged
sell-out on Kashmir at Tashkent. Tashkent and Kashmir had nothing do
with “personal issues,” but with the collective conscience of society.
The party which Imran Khan founded and chairs is a Movement for Justice,
and he did not join politics merely to try to bring about cosmetic
changes in Pakistan. To his exponentially growing throngs of supporters
he is a symbol of fundamental and structural changes in this country. He
is the symbol of politics the way it should be practised, where those
in power are meant to serve people, not to prolong their rule and enrich
their coffers.

He began his party with the clear objective of
creating a just society, especially for our downtrodden “kammis,” where
everyone is equal under the law. And this is exactly why Imran Khan will
win. Win he surely will, since, for the vast majority of youths in
Pakistan’s rural and urban regions, he is a powerful and charismatic
alternative. He is an alternative to the system that has deprived the
common man, especially in the rural areas, of a life of equality and
dignity. He aspires for a system where everyone can look forward to a
better and prosperous future.

The winds of change are blowing and there is no stopping the PTI now.

The writer is a freelance contributor based in Rawalpindi. Email: zirgham@gmail.com